Life after Brendan

[facaldaqui]

Rodgers was making no discernible progress.

I'm yet to be convinced that McDermott is.

I'm just trying to make the point that the two things aren't connected. If McDermott fails, it doesn't make Rodgers a success.

[Avon Royal]

Rodgers was making no discernible progress.

I'm yet to be convinced that McDermott is.

I'm just trying to make the point that the two things aren't connected. If McDermott fails, it doesn't make Rodgers a success.

I agree with that, to a certain extent I'm sort of making the same point. I.e. just because Rodgers was shit doesn't make McDermott the saviour.

[Whore Jackie]

We don't play as nice stuff, but we look much more effective and confident.

Personally I found the 'nice stuff' under Brendan rather dull. Reminiscent of Arsenal on a bad day, only without the individual skills to marvel at.

His narrow brand of keep-ball with a choked midfield was the polar opposite of the Coppell's pacy, wide, counter-attacking style. Not that we'd seen much of that for the last part of Coppell's tenure, with players leaving or drifting out of form. From an entertainment point of view, BR's formation evolving to a flexible sort of 4-4-2 was a definite improvement, one that's got better – for the most part – with Brian's pacier, seemingly hungrier team.

[Southbank Old Boy]

We don't play as nice stuff, but we look much more effective and confident.

Personally I found the 'nice stuff' under Brendan rather dull. Reminiscent of Arsenal on a bad day, only without the individual skills to marvel at.

His narrow brand of keep-ball with a choked midfield was the polar opposite of the Coppell's pacy, wide, counter-attacking style. Not that we'd seen much of that for the last part of Coppell's tenure, with players leaving or drifting out of form. From an entertainment point of view, BR's formation evolving to a flexible sort of 4-4-2 was a definite improvement, one that's got better – for the most part – with Brian's pacier, seemingly hungrier team.

Narrow?

He pretty much always played with wide men, and although they were often encouraged to cut in (by playing left footers on the right anf visa-versa) they definately played wide with both fullbacks encouraged to bomb on as well

I dont think we looked like a dull, pass for passing sake, side under Rodgers (a few of the early games apart) because we didnt just pass it we created a lot of chances whilst doing it

[Wimb]

ALOL at this!! Who decided to play "an understrength side" - with each progress we've made during the FA Cup, I've commented to Schards that we'd never be in this position or won these games under BR.

I don't think Rodgers would have used the FA cup in the same way he used the League cup though. He needed (chose) to give as many players as he could games early on and the league cup games gave him the chance to see more players in action. He didn;t play 'understrength' teams because he wanted to keep his 'first' team fresh. I think he woul dhave done much the same as McDermott and kept his selection fairly consistent (as consistent as it ever was anyway !)

Different times, different circumstances, different managers.

Agree that the feeling is more upbeat now. It woul dhave been if Rodgers had conjured up the wins of course, and we'll never know if he could have done.

What Sun said, he had always stated his intentions to play a full strength side when he got to the FA Cup. No idea if he'd have followed through with this mantra of course.

[Dirk Gently]

If McDermott falters, then fans are entitled to get stuck into him, as started here after the Forest and Sheffield defeats. But that's a separate matter from how good Rodgers was. Rodgers was making no discernible progress.

Yes, but it is a little harsh to say that losing one away match after a run of four straight wins is "fattering" (I know you weren't, facald). Or do Reading supporters really expect him to win every single match and feel entitled to criticise when he doesn't.

As to all the statistical analyses trying to prove one thing or another, there's far too little data for anything to be proved. But the feeling coming out of the club - as well as what we can see as supporters, is that the players seem much happier, more focussed and more motivated, as well as now playing in a way which seems a lot clearer to them and which suits their abilities more.

As just one example, do you think Shane Long has suddenly started scoring out of luck, or is it from having a manager who knows how to motivate him and get the best out of him? BMc demonstrably seems to have a much more realistic idea of how to get the best out of all them at this level.

I'm pretty relaxed that it doesn't work for every single match - things are clearly much better in ways we can all see than they were 3 months ago....

[Man Friday]

Agree that the feeling is more upbeat now. It woul dhave been if Rodgers had conjured up the wins of course, and we'll never know if he could have done.

No we won't. All we can say is that he showed no prospect of doing so. (Which I guess is what the Board felt also.)

[Hoop Blah]

As to all the statistical analyses trying to prove one thing or another, there's far too little data for anything to be proved. But the feeling coming out of the club - as well as what we can see as supporters, is that the players seem much happier, more focussed and more motivated, as well as now playing in a way which seems a lot clearer to them and which suits their abilities more.

As just one example, do you think Shane Long has suddenly started scoring out of luck, or is it from having a manager who knows how to motivate him and get the best out of him? BMc demonstrably seems to have a much more realistic idea of how to get the best out of all them at this level.

True, but on the flip side the likes of Karacan, McAnuff and Rasiak (possibly Bertrand) aren't playing as well as before, whilst the likes of Sigurdsson, Kebe, Ingimarsson, Federici, Church and borderline Howard aren't showing any real improvement.

I do think we've looked more solid at the back since Mills has been allowed to flourish alonside a proper fullback and that we look more likely to win a game at the moment despite not, in my opinion, playing such good football or creating as many chances (in relative terms to the opposition creating them at our end) as we did under Rodgers.

Getting important winning goals out of the likes of Long, Sigurdsson and Church that have actually got us the results has been key.

I'm pretty relaxed that it doesn't work for every single match - things are clearly much better in ways we can all see than they were 3 months ago....

Agreed, I do think we showed lots of arrogance as fans under Rodgers though, and we were expecting to win games that we had no right to think 3 points were ours by right (see a lot of the 'we can't even beat Scunthorpe' comments etc).

[Dorset-Knob]

I'm guessing that under BM we will win some, draw some and lose some! Under BR we seemed to lose some, lose some, draw some, lose some, lose some, draw some, lose some, lose some, win one, lose some, lose some, lose some, draw some, lose some.....................history!

[The Quiet Man]

Rodgers ONE WIN IN ELEVEN LEAGUE GAMES AT HOMEp- relegation certainties with that form. His last two home games probably leading the board to the conclusion that he was never going to turn it around drawing against a team with one of the worst away records in the division and then conceding 4 against mid table chuffers in Palace. McDermott at least has won the last two league games at home and it will be home form that will see us stay up or go down and we are at least playing recognisable ugly championship football (winning occasionally as well) and not some coaches wet dream tactics complete with one man and his dog whistling and utterly clueless substitutions - stop apologising for the son of Tommy Burns.

[Dorset-Knob]

Rodgers ONE WIN IN ELEVEN LEAGUE GAMES AT HOMEp- relegation certainties with that form. His last two home games probably leading the board to the conclusion that he was never going to turn it around drawing against a team with one of the worst away records in the division and then conceding 4 against mid table chuffers in Palace. McDermott at least has won the last two league games at home and it will be home form that will see us stay up or go down and we are at least playing recognisable ugly championship football (winning occasionally as well) and not some coaches wet dream tactics complete with one man and his dog whistling and utterly clueless substitutions - stop apologising for the son of Tommy Burns.

Fence sitter!

[Royal With Cheese]

Rodgers ONE WIN IN ELEVEN LEAGUE GAMES AT HOME

You really didn't need to go any further.

[Snowball]

I thought Rodgers would do well, and wasn't keen (at first) when Mac took over

But the stats are massively in Mac's favour.

If he lost his next four league games on the trot he'd still be averaging a point a game, Rodger's average

If you include the cup games, Mac could lose the next EIGHT on the trot before he got down to Rodger's level


Mac knows his stuff, does the simple things well and fully deserves his full-time status

[0-7]

I thought Rodgers would do well, and wasn't keen (at first) when Mac took over

But the stats are massively in Mac's favour.

If he lost his next four league games on the trot he'd still be averaging a point a game, Rodger's average

If you include the cup games, Mac could lose the next EIGHT on the trot before he got down to Rodger's level


Mac knows his stuff, does the simple things well and fully deserves his full-time status

All makes good sense to me.......succint analysis

[Woodcote Royal]

just because Rodgers was shit doesn't make McDermott the saviour.

How many home wins did Coppell and Rodgers manage between them in 2009?

One had a Premiership squad and the other was given four mllion to spend. Rodgers never won four games on the trot and God knows when Coppell's team last reached such dizzy heights.

Without spending a brass farthing, McD wins four on the spin in his first ten games If he isn't the saviour, fcuk knows what that says about Rodgers and Coppell....................................who will both be more to blame if we get relegated than the man tasked with the job of clearing up the mess they left behind.

[brendywendy]

just because Rodgers was shit doesn't make McDermott the saviour.

How many home wins did Coppell and Rodgers manage between them in 2009?

One had a Premiership squad and the other was given four mllion to spend. Rodgers never won four games on the trot and God knows when Coppell's team last reached such dizzy heights.

Without spending a brass farthing, McD wins four on the spin in his first ten games If he isn't the saviour, fcuk knows what that says about Rodgers and Coppell....................................who will both be more to blame if we get relegated than the man tasked with the job of clearing up the mess they left behind.

07/08?

[floyd__streete]

One had a Premiership squad and the other was given four mllion to spend. Rodgers never won four games on the trot and God knows when Coppell's team last reached such dizzy heights.

I can't remember the last time that a Coppell team won 4 on the trot.....I can remember the last time his team won 5 though:

Mon 1 Dec 08 CHAMPIONSHIP COVENTRY CITY (H) W: 3-1
Sat 6 Dec 08 CHAMPIONSHIP BARNSLEY (A) W: 1-0
Tue 9 Dec 08 CHAMPIONSHIP BLACKPOOL (H) W: 1-0
Sat 13 Dec 08 CHAMPIONSHIP NORWICH CITY (H) W: 2-0
Sat 20 Dec 08 CHAMPIONSHIP BIRMINGHAM CITY (A) W: 3-1

I think you should park the Coppell hatred now. I absolutely agree that the rot started with Coppell, but history will look kindly on him as our best ever manager. I also agree that - thus far - McDermott has done a very satisfactory job.

[Woodcote Royal]

I don't hate Steve Coppell but his last 2 seasons almost cancelled out the oustanding successes of the previous two and it's his fan club that need the reality check not me.............................McD is currently placing those wasted seasons in their true perspective.

[Royal Lady]

just because Rodgers was shit doesn't make McDermott the saviour.

How many home wins did Coppell and Rodgers manage between them in 2009?

One had a Premiership squad and the other was given four mllion to spend. Rodgers never won four games on the trot and God knows when Coppell's team last reached such dizzy heights.

Without spending a brass farthing, McD wins four on the spin in his first ten games If he isn't the saviour, fcuk knows what that says about Rodgers and Coppell....................................who will both be more to blame if we get relegated than the man tasked with the job of clearing up the mess they left behind.

"Thank you Brendan for making watching my team so much more enjoyable" ALOL.

[Vision]

You can blame Coppell (if blame is the right word) for being in the Championship but to blame him for us being in the relegation dogfight really is stretching it particularly when the person doing it was predicting play-offs at the start of the season. Reality check indeed.

Reality is that in every single one of Coppell's seasons we entered the last game of the regular season still with the possibility (albeit a slim one at times) of playing in the supposed holy grail of the Premiership the following season. The mere fact that for the last 2 seasons its considered a reason to villify the man simply underlines how far expectations were raised by what he acheived here.

As for "Life after Brendan" well I actually agree with Woodcote on this one that it was his failure to seem to understand that being bottom 5 all season wasn't acceptable that underlines perhaps he lacked the judgement and awareness required for the job at hand. The major difference is that McDermott does recognise this and has acted accordingly which in itself gives us a better chance of survival in my view.